Prognostic scores for sorafenib-treated hepatocellular carcinoma patients: A new application for the hepatoma arterial embolisation prognostic score

BACKGROUND

No prognostic classification is currently used for patients treated with systemic therapies for Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed data from patients treated with sorafenib for HCC from five centres in France and in the United Kingdom (UK). The training set comprised data from two centres and the validation set from three. Variables independently associated with Overall Survival (OS) in the training set were used to build the SAP (Sorafenib Advanced HCC Prognosis) score. The score was tested in the validation set, then compared with other prognostication systems.

RESULTS

The training set and validation set included 370 and 468 patients respectively. In the training set, variables independently associated with OS in multivariable analysis were: performance status (PS) >0, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) >400 ng/ml, tumour size >7 cm, bilirubin >17 μmol/l and albumin <36 g/l. The SAP score was built giving one point to each abnormal variable, and three classes were constructed. The SAP score was significantly associated with OS in the training set, with median OS of 14.9 months for SAP A, 7.2 months for SAP B and 2.5 months for SAP C (P < 0.001). In the validation set, the SAP score was significantly associated with OS, and showed greater discriminative abilities than Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) and albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) scores. However, the hepatoma arterial embolisation prognostic (HAP) score showed greater discriminative abilities than the SAP score.

CONCLUSION

In European patients treated with sorafenib, the HAP was the most discriminant prognostic score and may facilitate stratification in trials and inform clinical decision making.

[Toxicity and quality of life comparison of iodine 125 brachytherapy and stereotactic radiotherapy for prostate cancers]

Quality of life is a major issue for good prognostic prostate cancer, for which brachytherapy is one of the reference treatments. Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) is a recent alternative however not yet validated as a standard treatment. This review of the literature reports and compares the toxicities and the quality of life, either after exclusive brachytherapy with iodine 125 or after SBRT. The comparison is made with the limitations of the absence of randomized trial comparing the two treatment techniques. Acute toxicity appears to be lower after SBRT compared to brachytherapy (from 10 to 40 % versus 30 to 40 %, respectively). Conversely, acute and late gastrointestinal toxicity (from 0 to 21 % and from 0 to 10 % of grade 2, respectively) appears more frequent with SBRT. Late urinary toxicity seems identical between both techniques (from 20 to 30 % of grade 2), with a possible urinary flare syndrome. Both treatments have an impact on erectile dysfunction, although it is not possible to conclude that a technique is superior because of the limited data on SBRT. SBRT has better bowel and urinary (irritation or obstruction) quality of life scores than brachytherapy; while sexual and urinary incontinence remain the same. The absence of randomized trial comparing SBRT with brachytherapy for prostate cancers does not allow to conclude on the superiority of one technique over another, thus justifying a phase III medicoeconomic evaluation.